Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:33:49.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bronze Age Ceramic Economy: The Benta Valley, Hungary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Timothy Earle ,
Attila Kreiter ,
Carla Klehm ,
Jeffrey Ferguson  and
Magdolna Vicze
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We describe the Bronze Age ceramic economy of the Benta Valley in Hungary. In the Bronze Age, long-distance trade in metals, metal objects, and other specialty items became central to expansive prestige goods exchange through Europe. Was that exchange in wealth, however, linked to broader developments of an integrated market system? The beginnings of market systems in prehistory are poorly understood. We suggest a means to investigate marketing by studying the changing ceramic economy of a region, rather than at a single site. Analysis of the ceramic inventory collected as part of the Benta Valley Project strongly suggests that, although ceramic production was quite sophisticated and probably specialized, exchange was highly localized (mostly within 10 km) and conducted through personalized community networks. Our ceramic study used three progressively finer-scaled analyses: inventorying ceramic forms and decoration to evaluate consumption patterns, petrographic analysis to describe manufacturing sequences, and instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) to describe exchange. We conclude that, based on present evidence, market systems had not developed in Hungary during the Bronze Age.

Nous décrivons ici l'économie des céramiques de l'Âge du Bronze dans la vallée de Benta en Hongrie. Pendant l'Âge du Bronze, le commerce à longue distance des métaux, objets en métal et autres objets exceptionnels devenait crucial pour l'échange expansif de produits de prestige à travers l'Europe. Reste à savoir toutefois si cet échange de richesses était lié à des développements plus amples d'un système de marché intégré. Les débuts des systèmes de marché préhistoriques restent largement méconnus. Nous proposons un moyen d'étudier la commercialisation en examinant les changements de l'économie des céramiques d'une région plutôt que d'un seul site. L'analyse de l'inventaire céramique recueilli dans le cadre du projet de la vallée de Benta semble manifestement indiquer que, bien que la production céramique était plutôt raffinée et probablement spécialisée, l'échange restait très localisé (essentiellement dans un rayon de 10 km) et s'effectuait par des réseaux communaux personnalisés. Notre étude de la céramique appliquait trois types d'analyses toujours plus fines : l'inventorisation des formes et décors céramiques afin d'évaluer les modèles de consommation; des analyses pétrographiques afin de décrire les séquences de fabrication, et l'analyse instrumentale par activation neutronique (INAA) pour représenter les échanges. Nous sommes arrivés à la conclusion que, d'après les preuves actuelles, aucun système de marché ne s'était encore développé en Hongrie durant l'Âge du Bronze. Translation by Isabelle Gerges.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag wird die bronzezeitliche Keramik-Ökonomie des Benta-Tales in Ungarn beschrieben. In der Bronzezeit wurde der Fernhandel von Metallen, Metallobjekten und anderen speziellen Objekten ein zentraler Bestandteil des expansiven Austauschs von Prestigegütern in Europa. Doch war dieser Austausch von Reichtümern mit weiteren Entwicklungen eines integrierten Marktsystems verbunden? Die Anfänge von Marktsystemen in der Vorgeschichte werden bislang nur ansatzweise verstanden. Es wird hier vorgeschlagen, das Marktwesen eher anhand der sich verändernden Keramik-Ökonomie einer Region, als eines einzelnen Fundplatzes zu untersuchen. Die Analyse des Keramikinventars, das als Teil des Bentatal-Projektes gesammelt wurde, weist deutlich darauf hin, dass – obwohl die Keramikproduktion verhältnismäßig entwickelt gewesen ist und wahrscheinlich spezialisiert erfolgte – der Austausch stark lokal (meist innerhalb eines Radius von 10 km) ausgerichtet war und über personalisierte Kommunikationsnetzwerke abgewikkelt wurde. Unsere Keramikstudie nutzte drei zunehmend feiner skalierte Analysen: die Inventarisierung der Keramikform und -dekoration, um Verbrauchsmerkmale einzuschätzen, petrographische Analysen, um Herstellungssequenzen zu beschreiben, sowie Instrumentale Neutronenaktivationsanalysen (INAA), um den Austausch darzustellen. Wir folgern auf der Basis der aktuellen Ergebnisse, dass Marktsysteme während der Bronzezeit nicht entwickelt waren. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Keywords

Bronze Ageceramic economyconsumptionproductionexchangemarket systemÂge du Bronzeéconomie des céramiquesconsommationfabricationéchangesystème de marchéBronzezeitKeramikökonomieVerbrauchProduktionAustauschMarktsystem
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , 2011 , pp. 419 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Maney Publishing 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, D., 1994. Patterns of learning, residence and descent among potters in Ticul, Yucatan, Mexico. In Shennan, J. (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity: 174–184. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Balogh, C.E. and Balogh, L.P.G., 2006. Kerámiaégetési kísérlet a százhalombattai Régészeti Parkban, In Az AgyagműVesség Évezredei a Kárpát-Medencében: 19–22. Bp-Veszprém.Google Scholar
Bohannan, P., 1955. Some principles of exchange and investment among the Tiv. American Anthropologist 57: 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bóna, I., 1960. The Early Bronze Age urn cemetery at Kulcs and the Kulcs group of the Nagyrév culture. Alba Regia 1: 7–15.Google Scholar
Bóna, I., 1963. The cemeteries of the Nagyrév culture. Alba Regia 2–3: 11–23.Google Scholar
Bóna, I., 1975. Die mittlereBronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó (Archaeologia Hungarica 49).Google Scholar
Bóna, I., 1992. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Frankfurt am Main: W. Meier-Arendt.Google Scholar
Budden, S., 2007. Renewal and Reinvention: The Role of Learning Strategies in the Early to Late Middle Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Budden, S. and Sofaer, J., 2009. Non-discursive knowledge and the construction of identity: potters, potting and performance at the Bronze Age Tell of Százhalombatta, Hungary. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(2): 203–220.Google Scholar
Childs, S.T., 1998. Social identity and craft specialization among Toro iron workers in western Uganda. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 8: 109–121.Google Scholar
Coles, J. and Harding, A., 1979. The Bronze Age in Europe. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Costin, C., 1993. Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1–56.Google Scholar
Earle, T., 1982. Prehistoric economics and the archaeology of exchange. In Ericson, J. and Earle, T. (eds), Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange: 1–12. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Earle, T., 2002. Bronze Age Economics. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Earle, T. and Kolb, M., 2010. Regional settlement patterns. In Earle, T. and Kristiansen, K. (eds), Organizing Bronze Age Societies: 57–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Earle, T. and Kristiansen, K. (eds), 2010. Organizing Bronze Age Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Earle, T. and Smith, M., 2011. Households, economies, and power in the Aztec and Inka imperial provinces. In Smith, M. (ed.), The Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feinman, G., Kowalewski, S. and Blan-ton, R., 1984. Modeling ceramic production and organizational change in the pre-Hispanic valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. In van der Leeuw, S. and Pritchard, A. (eds), Many Dimensions of Pottery: 297–337. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University.Google Scholar
Foster, G., 1966. The sociology of pottery: questions and hypotheses arising from contemporary Mexican work. In Matson, F. (ed.), Ceramics and Man: 43–61. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Glascock, M., 1992. Characterization of archaeological ceramics at MURR by neutron activation analysis and multivariate statistics. In Neff, H. (ed.), Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology: 11–26. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.Google Scholar
Gosselain, O. P., 1998. Social and technical identity in a clay crystal ball. In Stark, M. (ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries: 78–106. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Gosselain, O.P., 2000. Materializing identities: an African perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, A., 2000. European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hirth, K.G., 1998. The distributional approach: A new way to identify market place exchange in the archaeological record. Current Anthropology 39: 451–476.Google Scholar
Harbottle, G., 1982. Chemical characterization in archaeology. In Ericson, J. and Earle, T. (eds), Contexts for Exchange: 13–51. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, M., 2008. An Archaeology of Black Markets. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
Hoard, R.J.M., O'Brien, M., Khorasgany, M. and Gopalaratnan, V., 1995. A material-science approach to understanding limestone-tempered pottery from the Midwestern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 823–832.Google Scholar
Inomata, T., 2001. The power and ideology of artistic creation: elite craft specialists in Classic Maya society. Current Anthropology 42: 321–349.Google Scholar
Kreiter, A., 2006. Kerámia technológiai vizsgálatok a Halomsíros kultúra Esztergályhorváti-alsóbárándpusztai településéről: hagyomány és identitás. Zalai Múzeum 15: 149–170.Google Scholar
Kreiter, A., 2007. Technological Choices and Material Meanings in Early and Middle Bronze Age Hungary: Understanding the Active Role of Material Culture through Ceramic Analysis. Oxford: Archaeopress (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1604).Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 1998. Europe Before History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 2000. The emergence of European communities: household, settlement and territory in late prehistory (2300-300 BC). In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M. (eds), Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition (SAX): Annual Report 1: 7–11. Százhalombatta: Matrica Museum.Google Scholar
Michelaki, K., 2006. Household Ceramic Economies: Production and Consumption of Household Ceramics Among the Maros Villagers of Bronze Age Hungary. Oxford: Archaeopress (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1503).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelaki, K., 2008. Making pots and potters in the Bronze Age Maros villages of Kizombor-Uj-Elet and Klárafalva-Hajdova. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18: 355–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, H., 1992. Introduction. In Neff, H. (ed.), Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology: 1–10. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.Google Scholar
Pammer, G., 2004. A bronzkor kemencéje: funkcióvizsgálat kísérleti régészeti módszerekkel. Mtárgyvédelem: 23–37. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.Google Scholar
Plattner, S., 1989. Economic Anthropology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K., 1944. The Great Transformation. New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K., 1957. The economy as instituted process. In Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C. and Pearson, H. (eds), Trade and Market in the Early Empires: 243–270. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Poroszlai, I., 2000a. Excavation at the Bronze Age tell site at Százhalombatta-Földvár, I. 1989-1991; II. 1991-1993. In Poroszlai, I. and Vicze, M., (eds), SAX, Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition, Annual Report 1 — Field Season 1998: 13–74. Százhalombatta: Matrica Museum.Google Scholar
Poroszlai, I., 2000b. Die Grabungen in der Tell-Siedlung von Bölcske-Vörösgyűrű (Kom. Tolna) (1965-1967). Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 51: 111–145.Google Scholar
Reents-Budet, D., 1998. Elite Maya pottery and artisans as social indicators. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 8: 71–89.Google Scholar
Sofaer, J., 2006. Pots, houses and metal: technological relations at the Bronze Age tell at Százhalombatta, Hungary. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25: 127–147.Google Scholar
Sofaer, J., 2010. Technology and craft. In Earle, T. and Kristiansen, K. (eds), Organizing Bronze Age Societies: 153–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vretemark, M., 2010. Subsistence strategies. In Earle, T. and Kristiansen, K. (eds), Organizing Bronze Age Societies: 153–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vicze, M., 2001. Dunaújváros-Duna-Dűlő: The Early and Middle Bronze Age Cemetery of Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Budapest.Google Scholar
Vicze, M., Earle, T. and Artursson, M., 2005. Bronze Age site gazetteer: Benta valley, Hungary. Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition, Report 2: 237–250. Százhalombatta: Matrica Museum.Google Scholar
Visy, Z. (ed.), 2003. Hungarian Archaeology at the Turn of the Millennium. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage.Google Scholar
Woods, A., 1986. Form, fabric and function: some observations on the cooking pot in antiquity. In Kingery, W. (ed.), Technology and Style. Ceramics and Civilization. Volume 2: 157–172. Columbus: American Ceramic Society.Google Scholar